Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

[Schneider]

I generally agree with this sentiment, however my issue with "more realistic" ratings is that player development feels more like a random number generator than anything else. Will one of my 50 Contact / 50 Power / 50 Eye improve? Who knows, I have 3 of these very similar guys in my system and hopefully one improves, but no real way of telling who or how.

I guess I just look at the potential ratings as if everything goes perfectly this is who I'll end up with. So I am looking at a 70 / 40 / 60 guy, a 50 / 80 / 60 guy and a 60 / 60 / 60 guy and can kind of dream on them if everything works out, but knowing that I'll probably end up with a 60/35/50, 45/65/60 and a 50/50/50 guy.

It is two sides of the same coin, but I think if they are going to put out "realistic" draft classes there needs to be something to differentiate these guys outside of changing scale to 1 point. I enjoy some fog of war and differentiation in prospects in the draft and just changing scale to choose between 52/48/48, 48/52/52 or 52/48/52 doesn't seem to do much for me.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Schneider

I generally agree with this sentiment, however my issue with "more realistic" ratings is that player development feels more like a random number generator than anything else. Will one of my 50 Contact / 50 Power / 50 Eye improve? Who knows, I have 3 of these very similar guys in my system and hopefully one improves, but no real way of telling who or how.

I guess I just look at the potential ratings as if everything goes perfectly this is who I'll end up with. So I am looking at a 70 / 40 / 60 guy, a 50 / 80 / 60 guy and a 60 / 60 / 60 guy and can kind of dream on them if everything works out, but knowing that I'll probably end up with a 60/35/50, 45/65/60 and a 50/50/50 guy.

It is two sides of the same coin, but I think if they are going to put out "realistic" draft classes there needs to be something to differentiate these guys outside of changing scale to 1 point. I enjoy some fog of war and differentiation in prospects in the draft and just changing scale to choose between 52/48/48, 48/52/52 or 52/48/52 doesn't seem to do much for me.

The 20-80 scale by 1's only applies to the Overall/Potential. The underlying skills like contact/power/eye are still displayed as 20-80 by 5's. I believe the only way to go by 1's with the underlying skills is the 1-100 scale option. Or maybe the 1-20? IDK I only use 20-80.

This....

changing scale to choose between 52/48/48, 48/52/52 or 52/48/52 doesn't seem to do much for me.

is something you wouldn't see as a result of changing the scale. All of those would still display on a scale by 5's. Screen shots below..

I'm honestly trying to understand your thinking on the 1 point scale. You are happy looking at ten to twenty 75-80 players potentials that almost never exists in real life? You are not happy looking at players with a 68 potential that is VERY rare but is more likely to exist in real life? Keep in mind that 68 potential would be the result of OOTP toning down the extremely inflated 70's and 80's we see now. It's not taking OOTP to extreme realism. If OOTP did tone down the draft inflation and we ended up with fifteen 68 Pot players, that would still be unrealistically inflated. But infinitely better than what we have now.

Note the scale settings and the results on the lineup screen showing my batter's Ov/Pot and individual skills. All skills by 5 and only Ov/Pot by 1's.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

There is precedence here….Baseball America now has basically two FV on prospects that appears to be “if everything works out” and a “more realistic outcome. Attached example.

I like this. Essentially, though, it comes down to development risk was not fully flushed out or implemented properly in ootp.

I shouldn't see many, if any, 16 year olds with a low development risk. However, that's what you get.

Also notice that risk always goes down with age, never up. With better scouting, the risk goes down, never up (in my experience).

I think development risk should be about talent change randomness. Instead, there seems to be a hidden potential assigned to players that you never see (regardless of how good your scouting is).

[thenewchuckd]

I would basically fully overhaul scouting and development. The thread is about the draft, but it spills into international amateurs as well.

I would get rid of favour tools and favour ability. Really, there aren't scouts out there good at both? Instead, have a specific rating for high school vs college players.

The draft combine sucks. Get rid of it, or polish it. If I have great scouting now, I can essentially have very high accuracy on everyone before the combine (this is impossible for the international signing period, by the way).

International needs a whole retool on its own.

Improve the fog of war around development relationship (why does this matter, make it searchable when hiring coaches)

Improve the fog of war around the lab (show me process probability, impact of coaches)

Tweak fielding and position development (especially as it relates to the lab)

[PSUColonel]

Any word on this yet?

[rwd59]

I think they already did something. My draft and international free agents may have 2-4 4.5 and 5 star players each amateur draft as opposed to 20+ in the early release. Most years have 1-5 star at best.I was getting 3-5 4.5 and 5 starts in IAFA and now may get one every 3-4 years.

[Boom Boom]

This is still an issue. Also, why are all the top prospects a SP or RP and top position players are catchers.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=369377

[atlbrave1]

At initial glance looks like the realists won out. In one 30 team league I simmed out 5 years (no changes to PCMs), 790 player draft class, 512 with potential rating of 30 or less, 722 at 40 potential or less (based on OSA). So 68 players who if they develop "normally" would be potential MLB players (i.e., 45 or above), or about 2 rounds (with supplemental picks) of potential MLB players. IAFA has 104 out of 119 at 40 or below.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

At initial glance looks like the realists won out. In one 30 team league I summed out 5 years (no changes to PCMs), 790 player draft class, 512 with potential rating of 30 or less, 722 at 40 potential or less (based on OSA). So 68 players who if they develop "normally" would be potential MLB players (i.e., 45 or above), or about 2 rounds (with supplemental picks) of potential MLB players. IAFA has 104 out of 119 at 40 or below.

It's possible the pendulum swung a bit the other way but that does seem more realistic to me than a bunch of 80s. Look at any draft and most of the talent is coming from the first two rounds. Everything else is arguably guys who had some "TCR."


Perhaps it makes selecting for personality traits even more important.

[PSUColonel]

Things seem much better from what I can see.and things are much more realistic.

[md40022]

I'm really late to the party here and I can't even speak on OOTP27 as I dont even own it yet, but I can say for fact that the point of Sweed's original post has been an issue in my eyes as well dating back to OOTP25 (which is what I'm currently playing).

Just a quick summary of what I read on this thread; many people feel that the potential ratings in draft classes are very much inflated with a ridiculously high amount of 5 star guys (I use stars and not # ratings). Then, once those 5 star guys get drafted they quickly turn into 1 or 2 star guys as things "normalize"

Per what some of the creators pushed back with, making things more realistic would probably lead to just 1 or 2 players being 5 star guys in a given draft class and then there being an insane amount of 3 star-ish guys all just in one giant group which would make drafting very tedious

I agree with EVERYTHING on all points there.

Here is my opinion on this.... Sweed's original point HAS TO get fixed. To me this was the biggest problem in OOTP25 (and it sounds like 27 as well) and it was the biggest problem by a freaking mile. Saying someone is a 5 star prospect just for the sake of saying it, only to have them become a 1 star prospect 3 months into their professional career is obnoxious. If scouts "missed" on guys in that type of time frame IRL, they would be out of a job immediately..... "Hey boss, remember that guy I scouted on Monday who I told you was a can't miss talent with superstar written all over him? I looked at him again on Wednesday and I was actually wrong. He's terrible. He probably won't ever be good enough to even play AA level." That's essentially the way it is now, and that's ridiculous.

To the point of it becoming tedious to have to sort through 1,000 3 star guys though, which is a valid point, what about something like this..... Can a "projected draft position" type of thing be incorporated? So maybe you have a million 3 star guys as far as their potential rating is concerned, but maybe some sort of formula be incorporated behind the scenes that weighs their potential ratings in individual categories (power, contact, speed, blah blah blah) to create a "score" that is kept behind the scenes but based on that score they can be given a "projected draft position". So maybe instead of sorting through 500 guys all with 3 star potential for my 2nd round pick, maybe now I'm only sorting through 50 guys since I'm filtering guys with 2nd round or 3rd round draft projection

I don't know how much work would need to go into that, but basically it would just be a filter that says here are your best of those 1000 3-star guys, here is the middle of the pack of the 3-star guys, and here is the bottom end of the 3-star guys...... and the behind the scenes formula that goes into creating that filter more or less is just automatically looking at the individual skills of the given prospects the same way "we" would have to do it going through 1000 guys..... then you call it the prospect's "draft projection" which is a IRL resource from plenty of independent scouts that MLB organizations have access to...... To me that would streamline "us" having to sort through those 1000 guys who all have the same potential rating by kind of grouping them a little bit..... Yes, these guys are both 3 star potential, but Jones is a 2nd-3rd round projection and Smith is a 5th-6th round projection

[snepp]

blurg

[relder17]

I miss the way it was. Can the amount of high potential amateurs in the draft be made adjustable in settings to satisfy everyone?

[Baconi]

Originally Posted by relder17

I miss the way it was. Can the amount of high potential amateurs in the draft be made adjustable in settings to satisfy everyone?

To be clear, the internal ratings haven’t changed too much afaik. It’s just how it’s displayed. So before, you’d have a lot of prospects with super high potentials but the vast majority would never reach that potential or even come close. Now, a player’s potential rating more accurately reflects what they’ll become in the future instead of showing the top 1% chance.

I really think the best way to go about it would be an adjustable option for scouting, ranging from realistic to aggressively optimistic, so you could choose whether you want to see the absolute ceiling for a player or just the expected value. But currently we don’t have that.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by relder17

I miss the way it was. Can the amount of high potential amateurs in the draft be made adjustable in settings to satisfy everyone?

That would be cool...or cool as some sort of a scout tendency, though I guess Favor Ability/Tools works this way.

But that said I love the new settings. If you have all of those 80s in the first round (or even the second), making draft picks is like throwing a dart at a board.

Yes, you can go off development risk and their ratings breakdown to try to intuit bust potential, but even those are obviously inflated to produce the 80. It just becomes vibes-based. It's not really that fun when you feel like you're just selecting a first-rounder at random because all of them are, to an extent, "equal."

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by ChrisG

That would be cool...or cool as some sort of a scout tendency, though I guess Favor Ability/Tools works this way.

But that said I love the new settings. If you have all of those 80s in the first round (or even the second), making draft picks is like throwing a dart at a board.

Yes, you can go off development risk and their ratings breakdown to try to intuit bust potential, but even those are obviously inflated to produce the 80. It just becomes vibes-based. It's not really that fun when you feel like you're just selecting a first-rounder at random because all of them are, to an extent, "equal."

But now you have that same problem, just in rounds 4 through 20.

[md40022]

Originally Posted by locuspc

But now you have that same problem, just in rounds 4 through 20.

True, but what I'd say is IRL an "elite" talent is supposed to stand out from the group. How often have we heard those old-schoolers talk about when you see a 5 tool player and how you know it when you see it and it leaves you drooling over those guys and how they don't come around often and blah blah. I'd rather those guys be given the 5 stars


Again IRL, when you're reviewing the "good" players who are draft worthy but not those OMG 5 star guys, yeah a lot of those guys are like picking a name out of a hat as they all blend together and nobody stands out from the pack..... So I'm perfectly fine with these changes assuming that they were properly executed.


I had the idea of maybe giving each prospect a "projected draft position" type of grade which would just more or less be a formula that the engine runs behind the scenes that maybe averages out the potential of their individual skills to come up with a cumulative score for each guy..... So they could say even though these 200 players are all 2.5 to 3 star potential, these 50 are projected for rounds 2-3, these 50 are projected for rounds 4-5, etc......... essentially doing a little bit of "automatic filtering" for us.


But regardless of that, the big cluster of guys should be the middle of the pack guys, because again just like IRL nothing sets them apart and nothing makes them stand out.


Plus, for my own selfish reasons.... I haven't truly "hit" on a first round pick in god knows how long so I'm not going to complain with some extra scouting clarity for that 1st round haha

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by locuspc

But now you have that same problem, just in rounds 4 through 20.

Minus of course all of those "fool's gold" highly rated players that will regress to players that should have been taken in lower rounds. Minus having to complain about "how come my drafted players always crash?".

There are many ways to differentiate the mid to low round players with the "new" realistic draft. They just take a bit more effort. I've already suggested changing your evaluations from 20/80 by 5's to 20/80 (which will show you ratings by one, ie 43/80 vs 45/80). Not sure why but users complain about this? Too much info? A cheat? In the x5's world both should show as a 45 after rounding. All x1's does is allow your scout to say both are 45's but I think one is slightly better than the other. And with that you still need to look at skills because 43/80 may be better suited to your needs than 45/80.

Users could try going to the 1-100 scale for just the draft to get the granularity they are missing with realistic ratings. After the draft go back to their 20/80. "But that's not realistic" they say. Yeah, neither were the inflated draft classes.

Make filters to sort the "all the same" group of players. An individualized prioritization of skills you want in your players is at your fingertips.

When you get to the lower rounds change the "relative league" setting to AAA, AA, A+, A as needed. Each step will make the differences in players more visible. The further down you go in the draft, the more likely you are actually drafting to fill you minor league teams. With this method you can still see MLB potentials and player traits to decide if this guy has a chance to be a "boom" player.

I really can't understand anyone supporting a system that they know is giving them incorrect information by design. Not a bug, by design.

People a few versions ago complained there were too many "moon shot" home runs. Too many 450 foot blasts. This needed to be fixed for immersion and reality. Keep in mind it didn't turn a HR into an out, it only changed a text blurb describing it. It was a valid complaint and I am glad it was addressed.
Fixing the draft is not fixing a text blurb that had no affect on the game other than immersion. It is fixing a fundamental flaw in a game that does it's best to simulate a real baseball world.

[locuspc]

The whole scouting system is based on getting incorrect information by design. If you want correct information, play with scouting off.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by locuspc

The whole scouting system is based on getting incorrect information by design. If you want correct information, play with scouting off.

About as necessary a statement as a guy that corrects someone about using "their" instead of "there" in an online forum. If we really have to go to the level of detailing posts with things like "of course scouts aren't accurate and we are talking about inflation of the scout's ratings" I'm not sure what to say? The whole thread is filled with that context.

Though I have to admit that sounds like a good solution for the unrealistic draft class users.

Maybe you can be the one to fill us in on how drafting a 75 Pot player that we all agree won't be a 75 Pot player within a few weeks is fun or good for a game that simulates reality? I am willing to listen.

Add in the ARTIFICIALLY (important to always note this WAS by design, not a bug) inflated draft classes will have 10+ players in the 70's and 10+ more with 80 potential. A simulation with 10+ players that don't exist in real life with maybe the exception of Bryce Harper(was he an 80 overall potential? I don't actually know.). Yes, ten potential Bryce Harper talents in every OOTP draft class, and 10 more 70+ players that are very unlikely to exist. All with a 99.9% chance of crashing to normal levels.